LegalPost.eu

ECJ: Airbnb case- France cannot require Airbnb to hold an estate agent’s professional licence as it did not notify the Commission of that requirement in accordance with the Directive on electronic commerce. By its judgment of 19 December 2019, Airbnb Ireland (C-390/18), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice held, first, that an intermediation service which, by means of an electronic platform, is intended to connect, for remuneration, potential guests with professional or non-professional hosts offering short-term accommodation services, while also providing a certain number of services ancillary to that intermediation service, must be classified as an ‘information society service’ under Directive 2000/31 on electronic commerce. [1] Secondly, the Court found that, in criminal proceedings with an ancillary civil action, an individual may oppose the application to him or her of measures of a Member State restricting the freedom to provide such a service which that indiv

Article by George Kazoleas,  Lawyer LL.M. (Banking & Capitalmarkets Law) It is well known that loan agreements contain terms and conditions that disturb the balance between the parties to the detriment of the borrower and are therefore legally and judicially  diagnosed as contrary to law. Despite this, most banks insist on including them in their new contracts, refusing to comply with court rulings even by the European Court of Justice. Especially, foreign currency loan agreements (such as the Swiss franc) contain many unfair and opaque terms. Particularly: The Bank had to inform the potential borrower of the foreign exchange risk and explain in detail the relevant clauses before concluding the loan. It is very common, that the loan agreement does not mention anything about this risk, nor does it appear that the borrower has been effectively and properly informed by a competent bank official. According to Cypriot and European legislation and case law, the loan agreemen

By Soulla Dionysiou, Lawyer, Founding Partner at Dionysiou & Partners LLC Τhe Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD) which was adopted by the European Parliament on 19 April 2019 will need to be transposed into National Law by all Member States by 10 January 2020, i.e. 18 months after its adoption. Although some Member States have already done so, the rest will need to follow suit as the deadline is fast approaching. The directive incorporates for the first time a regulation on virtual currencies (cryptocurrencies) and introduces their definition, according to which: “virtual currencies” means a digital representation of value that is not issued or guaranteed by a central bank or a public authority, is not necessarily attached to a legally established currency and does not possess a legal status of currency or money, but is accepted by natural or legal persons as a means of exchange and which can be transferred, stored and traded electronically (Article 2 d (18)).

By George Kazoleas, Lawyer LL.M. The right of early repayment of the loan by the borrower is enshrined in both European law and national legal systems. There are essentially two main effects of this right’s exercise: On the one hand, the consumer/ borrower is entitled to a reduction in the total cost of the credit consisting of interest and charges for the remaining period of the contract. On the other hand, the bank shall be entitled to reasonable and objectively justified compensation for any costs directly linked to early repayment of the credit, provided that the early repayment is made within the period for which the borrowing rate is fixed. (Article 16 (1) of Directive 2008/48). Bank’s compensation The relative clauses used by most banks regarding the issue of early repayment of the loan are vaguely worded and non-transparent and have therefore been repeatedly declared illegal, unfair and abusive. It is commonly stated that compensation includes any costs, expenses, losse

Αn important decision on the right of the arrested or detained person to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention has issued on 22.10.2019 the European Court of Human Rights. According to Article 5(4) οf the European Convention of Human Rights, “everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful”. Systematically the above provision is subject to the more general right to liberty and security (Article 5) In ECHR’s Chamber judgment in the case of Venet v. Belgium (application no. 27703/16) the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned proceedings in which the Applicant unsuccessfully challenged his pre-trial detention. He complained that he had been unable to attend the Court of Cassation’s hearing o

Article By Paris Hadjipanayis, Lawyer Ιn a recent high profile case ( C-260/18 ) adjudicated by the first instance court of Warsaw, Poland, a preliminary question was forwarded to the European Court of Justice on the 03/10/2019 to decide on a number of questions regarding the effect of abusive consumer clauses inserted in a mortgage loan, specifically with reference to the issuing of a loan in Swiss Francs (CHF) currency and released in national (PLN) currency. The question concerned the fate of such a consumer clause, whether it could be enforceable and if not whether abolition could grant the right to a National court to insert provisions from national (domestic) applicable legislation to fill in the gaps and protect the contract as well as the consumer. The matter of interest rate also became relevant to this question as the interest imposed originally was the one based on the reference point of LIBOR CHF 3M and the usual marginal profit of the lending bank. The applicant

Ι n the case of Pastörs v. Germany (application no. 55225/14) the European Court of Human Rights held on 3.10.2019, unanimously, that the applicant’s complaint under Article 10 (freedom of expression) was manifestly ill-founded and had to be rejected, and, by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the conviction of a Land deputy for denying the Holocaust during a speech in the regional Parliament. The Court found in particular that the applicant had intentionally stated untruths to defame Jews. Such statements could not attract the protection for freedom of speech offered by the Convention as they ran counter to the values of the Convention itself. There was thus no appearance of a violation of the applicant’s rights and the complaint was inadmissible. The Court also examined a complaint by the applicant of judicial bias as one of the Court of Appeal judges who